The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Sounds more like a problem with your knowledge of phsyics to me. If observational definition of time was just made up then why is there an equation to convert between the two definitions of time that is used by Physicists?

Wow. Why indeed statler? why indeed? What physicists? Where?
I don't know what the fallacy of this... thing is that you've presented to me off the top of my head - I'm guessing Non Sequitur, as your question clearly has nothing to do with whether or not it's made up. It certainly doesn't prove it's not made up. The fact that an equation exists doesn't mean it's used in the manner you describe.

Actually we WERE discussing the flood because you said there were trees that pre-dated the flood. Which of course is not the case due to the reasons I have already given.

No, what was being discussed was observing things over a long time period. You asserted that understanding radiological dating was impossible because humans can't live for billions of years necessary to observe that radioactive things don't spontaneously create daughter elements 8 or more times faster than other observed times, despite the fact that doing so would violate the laws of physics assuming it doesn't also render the planet uninhabitable (or melts it entirely away.)
Tree rings was your analogy that I rebutted.

1. You're right there is not enough water ON the planet to cover the planet. However the "fountains of the great deep" which opened up would include some of the water that is encased in the mineral structures in the Earth's mantle. Even many secular Geologists estimate there is enough water in the Earth's mantel to fill all the ocean's ten fold.

Really? The earth's mantle is holding ten times the amount of water needed to cover every land mass on the entire planet?
Where, Statler? Where is the water in the mantle? How is the water staying there and not coming up from the mantle, given that any four year old can recognize that rocks sink and water goes up - especially if the earth-balloon popped and all the water escaped?
Is the earth actually a giant sponge and god squeezed it the one time until all the continents disappeared?
Where did the water come out since the entire planet was drowned in water in less than two months?

2. You're right, the Ark could not support all life on Earth for any period of time. It's a good thing it didn't have to. Rather, it only had to support 2 of each "kind" of animal. Thanks to Darwin and rapid speciation we can estimte that there are only around 5000 different kinds of animals that would be required to take on the Ark and still end up with the diveristy we see today. This was more than doable.

So let me get this straight - a 600 year old man and his family built a professional stadium-sized wooden ship and scoured the planet of two of every 'kind' of creature, including billions of creatures that are now considered extinct, and one human family was able to
1) get two of every 'kind' of creature on the entire planet - including those from other continents?
2) provide for the housing, medical, sanitation, and dietary needs (including the HIGHLY specialized needs of certain creatures)?
3) transport these creatures multiple times from all locations around the planet to his ark?
4) survive?
All of this within a human lifetime and more?

Also... "rapid speciation?" So evolution is fine when it accounts for being able to conveniently wrap an otherwise gigantic number of creatures into a single arc and not only evolution - but hyper-fast evolution that allows a bear to spread across the planet and once again assume the exact roles that polar bears, brown bears, grizzley bears, koala bears, panda bears, and so forth within a millenia or two?

And most of all - when the flood was over, all of these creatures somehow returned to their natural locations despite having no signs of mass floods or drownings or signs of a mass extinction of any kind on a global scale within the last 10,000 years as though they'd never left?

3. The fossil record actually is some of the strongest evidence for a global flood. I am glad we have it.

Only if you're utterly science-illiterate, sure.

4. Already told you, tree ring dating cannot be used to demonstrate that any trees pre-date the flood. Especially since the very genuses that are supposedly so old are the same ones that can add more than one ring per year.

You certainly like to say that, but I actually understand the science behind it.
There are trees that are still around that are older than the biblical account of genesis.

Why would I link you to the articles then? Since it is obvious that you have already made up your mind about them before even seeing them. What kind of rationale is that? If I thought you were an objective person I would be more than happy to share them with you, you have already admitted that you are far from that. So I will just keep refuting you with the information from them. You can keep using youtube and wiki, by all mans.

I will keep using youtube and Wiki - because the way you dispel ignorance is with knowledge - because of or even despite the source and I stand by the youtube video I displayed for you and the others that have been shown to you because they display facts and figures that are easily backed with empirical evidence and facts that easily and readily refute *with evidence and simple logic* the inane ideas like - Noah's flood and genesis.

But you're right. I am very skeptical about your "evidence" because you've given me nothing here there or anywhere to make be believe it's anything other than an attempt to prove a young-earth theory despite observation and evidence but I'm still interesting in seeing what you have.

You see - that's the difference between science and religious philosophy, as I've explained much earlier in this discussion because scientists don't do their studies with people who share the same worldview. Once they conduct a study and submit it, it must even pass through people who may have every reason to want to see the theory or whatever it is to fail. What makes evolution, gravity, heliocentrism, and just about every science behind our modern society a theory is because it went through even those ringers and won out over it's competing models through testing and observation.
In other words, light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second not because a group of people agreed to it, but because it's been tested repeatedly with dogged determination and ever-more sophisticated and precise machines and techniques until we could get that figure down to the nanometer.

All you're doing is convincing me further about how easily the ideas behind your inane theory can be torn apart if subjected to scrutiny and I have every reason to believe it already has been when I simply reminded you of Einsten's special relativity.

Seems pretty logical that when you find a piece of wood completely encased in sandstone, you would assume that the wood would have to either be older or at very least the same age as the sandstone (if you know how sandstone is formed). Howeever, when the wood was dated it was over 249 million years younger than the sandstone. One or both of those dating methods is not reliable then.

That's because your assumptions are wrong.

Sweet, I was hoping you'd say something along these lines. So I can now remember this next time you try and say the Bible is only a "bronze aged book" or "old and out-dated"- thanks.

Oh no, the bible is wrong because it's ideas and accounts are wrong, not because it's out-dated or old, but thanks for trying.

I thought it was kind of apparent. A structure that has supposedly lost its functionality is not evidence for particle to human Evolution because this shows an actual loss in information and functionality. So it is more evidence for de-evolution than it is for evolution and actually does damage to the Theory. Now if we had observed organs that used to do very little, but now have become more and more complex and do more and more in the organism then we'd actually have something to work with. Besides it can't be used as proof because as many people have said on here, "just because we don't know the answer now does not mean we won't find it later on"- I can always just use that argument back at you. Again, the list of "vestigial" organs used to be huge, now it is small, so it looks like your evidence is actually dying.

Wow. A creationist who doesn't understand evolution. How ... what's the word that's opposite of surprising?
Boring. That's right. Boring.
The first foundational falsehood of creationism (among more than a dozen or two).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RKQ7ukZKDk